The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2012, 10:06 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Schumer, Feinstein Offer Magazine Ban Amendment

http://thehill.com/video/senate/2406...ontrol-measure

The usual crowd in the Senate will attempt to amend the Cybersecurity bill with S. Amdt. 2575.

This bill will ban the transfer and possession of any feeding device (belts, clips, magazines, etc.) of more than 10rds unless it is a .22

The Senate is expected to debate and vote on amendments to the cybersecurity bill next week. If you haven't contacted your Senators yet, now would be a good time.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:17 PM   #2
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
It's going nowhere... Senator Reid (of all people) will likely not touch it. Why? He's an NRA "A" rated player.

Even if it somehow makes it out of the Senate... It will be D.O.A. in the House. Schumer and Feinstein will probably get discreet messages from the White House to shut the heck up. It's an election year and gun-control is political suicide. In fact, with that in mind, I hope they do pass it... Talk about hyping up a voting block to go vote in November... That amendment would be repealed almost before the ballot counting was concluded...

Notice that the proposed exception would be for .22 rimfire? You know, the one cartridge that comes in pretty much only 10rd mags... Ironic, don't you think?
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:35 PM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Text of amendment is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...1-3.pdf#page=3

The law would grandfather existing magazines for possession; but you would be unable to transfer them to anyone. Also the .22LR exception only applies to tubular magazines. 10-22 owners are still hosed. Also requires all new mags to be serial numbered - great paperwork joys for military and LE I'm sure.

I agree it is unlikely to go anywhere; but the best way to make sure of that is for Senators to hear from us. A swift powerful response here reminds them we are not sleeping and should keep them focused when the UN treaty rolls around as well.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:36 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
One wonders how the NRA feels about their rosy endorsement of Gillibrand these days.

That said, this is nothing new. In the 110th Congress, Feinstein and Schumer tried appending this to at least twenty bills. At least, twenty is where I stopped counting. They had the most receptive Congress possible, and it never got to committee.

So, yeah. Don't worry. Feinstein will also try to get the Assault Weapons Ban reintroduced in January, like she has every year since 2004. Bobby Rush will try to get nationwide handgun registration, like he has every year since 2000. Anyone can propose anything; the question is whether or not it'll grow legs and start doing the Lambada.

And it won't.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:03 PM   #5
Creeper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Woooooshington
Posts: 1,797
Recently, I've been looking at the "More Gun Control?" polls on both Dem and Rep websites. Every single one, regardless of political leaning, is at least 2/3 for no additional gun control.

Like everyone else, my feeling is that this dog will not hunt.

Cheers,
C
__________________
Shoulder Drive Nicholson Club
Creeper is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:16 PM   #6
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Sent an e mail to Mark Kirk, we will see if there is a reply. Not going to waste my energy sending anything to "Dick" Durbin , the other senator from Illinois.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 06:12 AM   #7
W.E.G.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: all over Virginia
Posts: 266
Magazine Ban Amendment Offered to Senate Cybersecurity Bill

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...1-3.pdf#page=3

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself,
Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ,
Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER,
and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the
security and resiliency of the cyber and
communications infrastructure of the
United States; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following
SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION
OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting
after paragraph (29) the following:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition
feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed
strip, or similar device that has a capacity
of, or that can be readily restored or converted
to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular
device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
(b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title
is amended by inserting after subsection (u)
the following:
‘‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause
(ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to
transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition
feeding device.
‘‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession
of a large capacity ammunition feeding
device otherwise lawfully possessed within
the United States on or before the date of
the enactment of this subsection.
‘‘(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to
import or bring into the United States a
large capacity ammunition feeding device.
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
‘‘(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession
by the United States or a department
or agency of the United States or a State or
a department, agency, or political subdivision
of a State, or a transfer to or possession
by a law enforcement officer employed by
such an entity for purposes of law enforcement
(whether on or off duty);
‘‘(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes
of establishing and maintaining an on-site
physical protection system and security organization
required by Federal law, or possession
by an employee or contractor of such
a licensee on-site for such purposes or offsite
for purposes of licensee-authorized
training or transportation of nuclear materials;
‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is
retired from service with a law enforcement
agency and is not otherwise prohibited from
receiving ammunition, of a large capacity
ammunition feeding device transferred to
the individual by the agency upon that retirement;
or
‘‘(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession
of a large capacity ammunition feeding device
by a licensed manufacturer or licensed
importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation
authorized by the Attorney
General.’’.
(c) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section
922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.’’.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS.—Section
923(i) of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following: ‘‘A large capacity ammunition
feeding device manufactured after
the date of the enactment of this sentence
shall be identified by a serial number that
clearly shows that the device was manufactured
after such date of enactment, and such
other identification as the Attorney General
may by regulation prescribe.’’.
W.E.G. is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 06:58 AM   #8
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
NRA is interested in one thing. Raising money. I have very little respect for their current business model and stopped supporting them long ago. Obama has been great for guns and gun manufacturing sales are way up because a group of people are so intent on making you afraid of someone that the just make stuff up.

Romney signs into law an assault weapons ban, Obama has never signed any gun control in fact he has deregulated. Keep your eye on the ball people.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 07:52 AM   #9
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Obama has not signed any gun control legislation ... could that be because he has not had the chance?

It is better to speak early and strongly to our legislators to prevent the passage of gun control bills than to wait and see whether ANY President is pro-gun enough to veto a gun control law.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 07:58 AM   #10
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Romney signs into law an assault weapons ban, Obama has never signed any gun control in fact he has deregulated. Keep your eye on the ball people
That's a fact. I think Obama would like to, but politically it would be suicide.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 08:08 AM   #11
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Romney signs into law an assault weapons ban, Obama has never signed any gun control in fact he has deregulated. Keep your eye on the ball people.
Mr O is hardly a friend of guns.... See the Fast and Furious thread in this forum.... And it was Mr O who also said they were basically seeking gun control "under the radar"... Not to steal this thread in any way but if F&F is truly closed then why not release everything? I think if nothing else you will see rabidly anti-gun emails within the Justice department and on down and maybe some other horrible ideas (in email)about illegal ways to try to create a public atmosphere against guns.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 08:30 AM   #12
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,641
If Obama gets a second term, he will look to the courts, and Executive Order for more gun control. Schumer, and Feinstein are just pandering to their ultral liberal base, and know these bills will go nowhere.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 08:37 AM   #13
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
Obama has never signed any gun control in fact he has deregulated. Keep your eye on the ball people.
To the contrary, the Obama Administration has added several regulations (13 ATF rulings since 2009) and proposed additional regulations:

1. Added multiple sales reporting requirement for semi-automatic rifles in border states: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=433527

2. Proposed a new sporting purposes test for shotguns that would ban import of many and cause many domestic shotguns to be classified as destructive devices: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=445790
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=450184

3. Reversed United States stance on UN Arms Trade Treaty to acceptance rather than opposition.

If we want to keep our eye on the ball, I'd suggest that paying attention to some of the more subtle moves like these (let alone things like Fast and Furious) are just as important as legislation. To be fair though, not all of the rulings were negative and some were an improvement.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 09:26 AM   #14
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
You are looking the wrong way. Fast and furious has nothing to do with taking away rights of law abiding americans and nothing to do with obamas policy. If you believe that you probably believe that obama was born in kenya too.

Obama has better things to do period. The NRA just needs a specter for fund-raising. Its all hype. I agree that we need to stay on top of our legislators about gun control but its the state and local that you need to worry about. You're going to be looking the wrong way when ya get hit by the truck if you keep looking at the feds.

Also this is not a liberal or conservative issue. I'm as liberal as they come and many of my conservative friends and legislators are anti gun. Don't confuse politics with policy. Romney took rights away from every law abiding citizen in mass. Obama has not. Actions speak louder then words and all.

We have the constitution on our side we don't need lies and hype.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 10:11 AM   #15
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
Fast and furious has nothing to do with taking away rights of law abiding americans and nothing to do with obamas policy.
Looks to me like Brian Terry and Jaime Avila are two Americans who sure lost some rights as a result of Fast and Furious.

Quote:
Obama has better things to do period. The NRA just needs a specter for fund-raising.
So you are saying in reality, Obama is so progun that he pushed the regulations I linked above and proposed making large numbers of shotguns into Destructive Devices just to help the NRA with its fundraising? Was he a double agent for the NRA when he was on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation too?

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; July 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 10:50 AM   #16
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
No I'm saying someone's political ideals do not equal what they want to do on a policy level. Obama has no interest in putting in anti gun policy so I don't care what his political views are on it.
I can't say the same about other politicians. Some use a lot of rhetoric but you have to look at what they have actually done policy wise.

I don't get the reference to the people who were killed allegedly with weapons the atf let "walk" which like it or not is a tool all law enforcement agencies use. Are you saying the guns used are to blame or that the people who sold them are to blame because that seems like a very anti gun argument to me. The criminal element in mexico is going to get weapons one way or another the bone headed move by the atf is just that a bone headed move. Lots of what the atf has done has been bone headed. You can't blame the administration for that it would have done the same thing under mccain.

The atf is a law enforcement agency with its own agenda and is not being used by the obama administration as a policy tool. This has been borne out by several independent investigations. Its a farce just like the small arms treaty which would have no effect on out 2ed amendment rights. Makes a great fund-raiser for the NRA though
jason_iowa is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 02:20 PM   #17
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,316
Jason, you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't care about people's stated desires and intents because no one gave them an opportunity to implement them. I don't agree. The President has made many statements about increasing gun control and even went as far as to side with DC in the Heller case. To suggest that we should not be concerned about his views is not wise. Fortunately for us, most in Congress try very hard to stay there, and that means generally keeping their votes in line with the voting public or keeping us apathetic. For most Congress members, that means not voting for draconian gun control.
raimius is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 03:02 PM   #18
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 497
Quote:
Some use a lot of rhetoric but you have to look at what they have actually done policy wise.
And in Obamas case what he has done is selected two gun hating justices for life time appointments to the Supreme Court whose negative impact on the RKBA may be felt for decades. We don't need any more like them.
JN01 is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 03:12 PM   #19
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
Obama has no interest in putting in anti gun policy so I don't care what his political views are on it.
I have no idea why people try to deny what Obama has consistently and repeatedly stated and has even made part of his official administration policy.

Washington Post, July 25, 2012:
Quote:
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama still supports a ban on the sale of assault weapons, a restriction that expired in 2004.
White House Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, issued July 2011: The two treaty instruments listed above require countries to make it a criminal offense to manufacture or assemble weapons or ammunition (that means "build" an AR or reload ammo) without a government license.

Do not confuse Obama's inability to impose more gun control with his willingness and desire to do so.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 09:16 PM   #20
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
I don't get the reference to the people who were killed allegedly with weapons the atf let "walk" which like it or not is a tool all law enforcement agencies use.
You're mistaken on that part. They sometimes let drugs and other contraband walk, but the rule is to never, ever lose a gun.

Do I think the operation was a plot to destroy the 2nd Amendment? No. I think it was a rogue element in the Phoenix office that went off the reservation. The problem lies in the fact that the Attorney General is either protecting the parties involved or he is truly incompetent as a supervisor. In either case, it falls to his boss to handle the situation, not protect him.

In any case, we're all off topic! Where were we? Oh yeah, the magazine ban. Let's stick with that.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 10:47 PM   #21
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
The difference between Mr O and Mitt is this:

The base of the Democratic party, Mr Obamas party is against the private ownership/posession of firearms. These are the people who raise the money, these are the people who Obama cannot T off too bad.

The base of the Republican Party, Mitt's party is all about RTKBA, support for the second amendment and fighting any gun regulations tooth and nail. These are the people Mitt cannot T off to bad once elected.

The only reason Obama has not gone after gun control yet is because it would probably cost his party the Senate and destroy any hopes of retaking the house. If he plays it cool in this election he can have another two years of a Democratic president, Senate and House to do whatever he wants.

I can assure you, if Obama is elected to a second term the first two years of a second Obama term will be filled with anti gun stuff. Moreso if his party controls both the House and Senate.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 11:06 PM   #22
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
The base of the Democratic party, Mr Obamas party is against the private ownership/posession of firearms. (...) The base of the Republican Party (...) is all about RTKBA, support for the second amendment and fighting any gun regulations tooth and nail.
That's an oversimplification, and an inaccurate one at that.

There are a great number of Democrats who are quite supportive of the 2nd Amendment. In the 2010 midterms, 58 Democratic House candidates were endorsed by the NRA. Read the amicus briefs in support of the Heller and McDonald cases submitted by members of Congress and look at the party breakdowns of the signatories.

On the other hand, the original Assault Weapons Ban was passed with a great deal of assistance from Republicans. Take a look at the proposed 2008 renewal and tell me what party all the sponsors are from.

I could go on.

This isn't a Red or Blue issue, and we do ourselves a disservice by assuming such.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 11:18 PM   #23
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,752
What's mildly interesting is during this federal magazine restriction attempt, Arizona quietly prepares to remove the magazine limits for hunters. No more 2 rounds in the magazine for shotguns, (excluding federally regulated migratory birds), no more 5 rounds for semi autos. Also hunters can carry a second firearm for self defense, bow hunters can pack along something with more authority if they meet cartel members.
They try to tighten while some of the states loosen.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 05:28 AM   #24
Master Blaster 2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 895
Jayson has stated in the past he voted for his current chief who has been good for guns. I am from Iowa and it is not the view of most Iowans.
Master Blaster 2 is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 08:49 AM   #25
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Jason Iowa has understood the real situation, not the paranoid, all-or-nothing clamor of the inattentive: Here are some quotes from the website of the most organized, well funded anti-gun organization - the Brady Gun Violence Center- here's the link: http://www.bradycenter.org/reports/b...s/obamareport:

"The President’s concessions to the “guns anywhere” mentality of the gun lobby and lack of leadership for common-sense gun laws has earned him a grade of “F”.

"President Obama signed legislation letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked luggage on Amtrak trains, adopted the gun lobby’s empty rhetoric about just “enforcing the laws on the books,” and muzzled Cabinet members who expressed support for stronger gun laws. "

"In addition, the White House voiced no objection to people carrying guns near Presidential events and his White House staff removed statements from the White House website that declared support for gun violence prevention laws."

"In just one year, Barack Obama has signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than in President George W. Bush’s eight years in office."

"…Administration officials parroted NRA slogans to just “enforce the law on the books,” even though there are few such laws and those are riddled with loopholes. It is no wonder that one pro-gun writer remarked that the NRA “should erect a statue of Barack Obama in front of its D.C. headquarters.”

"…his Administration’s extraordinary silence and passivity has allowed the gun lobby to move its agenda forward…"

"He can show leadership by rejecting the extremist agenda of the NRA, and instead pushing for common sense strategies to prevent gun violence, such as requiring background checks at gun shows, prohibiting gun sales to suspected terrorists, and giving law enforcement the tools it needs to crack down on corrupt dealers and traffickers. "

Now tell me that's all a ruse, a sham to get him reelected.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14429 seconds with 9 queries